Jl. of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia (2011) 20 (2), 179-193.
Teacher Criteria for Evaluating and Selecting Developmentally Appropriate Computer Software Esther Ntuli
North Shore Community College, USA
[email protected]
Lydia Kyei-Blankson Illinois State University, USA
[email protected]
Although many teacher training programs and school districts offer courses and workshops on technology integration in instruction, research shows that teachers still face major challenges especially as it relates to selecting and using developmentally appropriate technology to meet the needs of diverse learners. The current study examines the selection criteria used by early childhood teachers in a mid-western school district. The results of the study suggest that most teachers have a general idea of what constitutes developmentally appropriate technology. However, barriers such as the availability of time to learn the software, lack of funding for purchasing software, lack of teacher understanding of the connection between the technology and the curriculum, lack of technical support, limited age appropriate software, and an inability to access and try available material continue to inhibit teachers from selecting such technology for the teaching and learning process. Keywords: Developmentally Appropriate, Early Childhood, Developmentally Appropriate Software, Software Evaluation
Introduction These days the use of computer technology by children begins at a very early age. Data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2006) show that about 67 per cent of nursery school students, 80 per cent of children in kindergarten, and over 90 per cent of first graders use computers and know how to log on the Internet. Given these statistics, it is
180
Ntuli and Kyei-Blankson
apparent that more than ever, today’s teacher needs to be conversant with the use of technology in instruction. Also, with the proliferation of computer software, it is imperative that teachers have the philosophical knowledge and skills for effective evaluation, selection, and use of technology that is appropriate for the age range or diverse groups of students in their classrooms. Using technology as a meaningfully tool to deliver instruction is important even at the early childhood level. ����������������������������� Researchers such as Buckleit��������� ner (2006), Nikolopoulou (2007), and Parette, Hourcade, Boeckmann, and Blum (2008), have suggested that the use of such technology could have positive implications for the cognitive, language, and social development of students. Bewick and Kostelnik (2004) have however identified that the evaluation, selection, and use of appropriate technology as an issue that most early childhood teachers grapple with. Assessment tools recommended for evaluating technology include the Haugland Developmental Software Scale (1999) and the Haugland/Shade Software Scale (2002). These scales measure the extent to which the technology intended for use is developmentally appropriate. The criteria assessed by these tools include: • age appropriateness, • the extent to which the child remains in control during the use of the technology, • the clarity of the instructions provided, • the ways by which complexity is expanded on during the use of the software, • the extent to which the child is able to work independently with the software, • the extent to which the content is non-violent, • the amount of process orientation provided during the use of the software, • the extent to which the content is modeled after real-life events, • the technical features of the program, and • transformations. All together the above criteria take into consideration the child’s current social, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive abilities in relation with the specific goals and objectives of the curriculum materials, activities and assessments used in the classroom. Another evaluation procedure documented by Potter, Johnson, and Hutinger (2006) describes developmentally appropriate software as software that allows for:
Teacher Criteria for Evaluating and Selecting Developmentally Appropriate
181
• exploration, • provides engaging problem solving opportunities, • allows for student control of their own learning, • stimulates interest in the content, • encourages active involvement, and • provides effective and non-threatening feedback. In addition to the above criteria, evaluators believe educational software should reflect a diverse society, should be easy to navigate, and should not focus only on drill and practice skills or basic concepts (NAEYC , 1996; Scoter, Ellis, & Railsback, 2001; Nikolopoulou, 2007). Teachers need to consider these software evaluation scales because they are based on the belief that children learn best by doing, interacting and exploring rather than watching, and listening. Buckleitner (1999) also contends that in their evaluation and selection of software, teachers need to ask the following questions: What is the intended purpose of the software? What is the developmental level of the intended audience? How does the software compare with similarly designed, competitive products? What theoretical orientation do teachers bring to the software evaluation process? What is the history of the software in question, and what is the current “state of the art” comparable software?” (p. 2-3). Buckleitner continues to argue that “ in making judgment calls on these products, a reviewer should not only be able to identify the underlying theoretical influence of a product, but must also be aware of his or her own theoretical orientation” ( p. 212). Similarly, Haughland and Wright (1997) note that when teachers select software, the most important factor is to select software that is congruent with their philosophical approach. Aldrich (2002) emphasizes the importance of having teachers and teacher candidates connect the use of the software to important child development theories such as Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, Piaget’s cognitive-developmental theory, and Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligence. It is also crucial for teachers to reflect on Erick Erickson’s stage theory of emotional development (Kolstelnik, Whiren, Soderman, and Gregory, 2009; Gonzalez –Mena and Eyer, 2007) when selecting software. There are eight stages on Erickson’s spectrum of emotional development. The third stage, Initiative vs Guilt, on the spectrum is where the 3-6 year olds fall. The developmental task of 3-6 year olds within the spectrum is to plan and carry out activities, and learn society’s boundaries (Kolstelnik, Whiren, Soderman, and Gregory, 2009). Early
Ntuli and Kyei-Blankson
182
childhood teachers working with 3-6 year olds should select software which allows children to be initiative and at the same time stay within cultural and societal expectation. Although evaluation scales exist, research suggests that the issue of evaluating, selecting, and using developmentally appropriate software still remains one of the major challenges faced by teachers especially at the early childhood education level (Haughland, & Ruiz 2002; Haugland, 2005). Before teachers can be helped in this area, it is important that the criteria they use for selecting technology be assessed. Purpose of the Study The current study examined early childhood teacher views on developmentally appropriate software and how they evaluate, select and use such technology, and the challenges they face during the process. Specifically, this study sought to reveal the selection and use of developmentally appropriate software among teachers at the kindergarten through third grade levels. Research Questions The research questions this study sought to address include: 1. How do early childhood teachers rate research-based criteria for evaluating, selecting, and using developmentally appropriate technology? 2. What criteria do early childhood teachers use when selecting developmentally appropriate software? 3. What barriers do early childhood teachers face when selecting and using developmentally appropriate software? Method Research Design and Participant Selection An explanatory mixed method approach was employed for the collection and analysis of data in this study. The research procedure was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, data were collected both quantitatively and qualitatively using an online survey instrument. The second phase involved the collection of qualitative data through semi-structured teacher interviews. The qualitative data provided complementary findings that supported the information gathered from the surveys (Gall, Borg, & Gall, 1996).
Teacher Criteria for Evaluating and Selecting Developmentally Appropriate
183
Purposeful sampling was used to select 56 participants from a sampling frame of 150 teachers teaching at the kindergarten through third grade levels at 18 public elementary schools located in a Midwest metropolitan area. Of the 56 teachers, 54 completed viable surveys (51 females and 3 males). Out of this group, 18 (33%) taught kindergarten, 15 (28%) taught at the first grade level, 10 (19%) were second grade teachers, and 11 (20%) reported teaching third grade. The average class size for most teachers was between 20-25 students. Also, the majority of the teachers (41%) reported having over 15 years of teaching experience and a master’s degree (54%). For the second phase of the study, a typical sampling approach was used to select 10 out of the 54 teacher participants for one-on-one interviews. “A typical sample would be one that is selected because it reflects the average person, situation, or instance of the phenomenon of interest” (Merriam, 1998, p. 62). Data Collection and Analysis The online survey that was designed for data collection in this study was assessed for content validity by subject matter experts to ensure that the instrument measured what it intended to measure (Gay, 1996). The instrument was also piloted with a convenience sample of teachers to ensure reliability. Pilot testing the survey helped determine that the individuals in the sample were capable of completing the survey and that they could understand the questions (Creswell, 2008). Survey data was analyzed using descriptive statistics such as percentages, means and standard deviations on the closedended questions while teacher narratives were organized through open coding and analyzed for themes and commonalities as suggested by Saldana (2009). In the second phase of the study, one-on-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with each of the 10 study participants at a location of their choice. Each interview lasted approximately forty five minutes to an hour. The interviews were audio-recorded and the data were transcribed verbatim, coded and analyzed for themes. Member checking was used to ensure trustworthiness of the understandings gathered from the qualitative data (Merriam, 1998). Findings and Discussion Teachers’ Rating of Research-Based Criteria for Evaluating, Selecting, and Using Developmentally Appropriate Educational Software Teachers were asked to indicate, using a scale from 1= Not Important to 4= Very Important, the extent to which they considered a particu-
184
Ntuli and Kyei-Blankson
lar research-based criterion to be essential in selecting children’s software. Teacher responses presented in Table 1 show that all the teachers thought criteria such as the educational content, ease of navigation, and allow for active involvement and interest are either important or very important. In addition, more than 80 per cent of the teachers rated criteria such as allows for exploration and problem solving, as well as age appropriateness as being either important or very important. On the other hand, less than 50 per cent of the teachers rated criteria such as the extent to which the program allows for child control and the open-endedness of the program as very important. Of these statistics what was most surprising was teacher low ratings of the importance of open-endedness of the software (see Table 1). Only 17% of the teachers rated this criterion as very important. This result is surprising because educators have mostly encouraged the use of open-ended materials that allow for exploration at the early childhood education level (Kostelnik, Soderman, and Whiren, 2007). Children develop critical thinking skills when they are left to explore the environment, therefore, software that is developmentally appropriate should be selected on the basis of it being able to allow children to explore. In addition, it is recommended that children have control over the software and are able to decide the flow and direction of the activity (Haughland and Wright, 1997). Children should be able to navigate and decide what each computer experience will be like, thus making the child an active participant who is able to initiate and decide the sequence of events rather than being a mere reactor responding to predetermined activities or random screens generated by the software (Kostelnick, 1992). As such teachers need to consider, select, and use open-ended software programs, which allow for child control as it has potentially more learning gains as compared to drill and practice software. Generally, results in Table 1 show that most teachers are aware of and rate most of the essential criteria for selecting developmentally appropriate software very highly or as being of importance. Most of the research-recommended criteria were considered as either important or very important by the teachers.
Teacher Criteria for Evaluating and Selecting Developmentally Appropriate
185
Table 1 Early Childhood Teacher Criteria for Selecting and Using Educational Software in the Classroom Criteria
Not Important
Less Important
Important
Very Important
The content is educational
0
0
13
87
The vocabulary is age appropriate
0
2
17
81
The software is openended
4
31
48
17
The software allows exploration
0
25
52
23
The software allows the child to control the process
0
35
39
26
The software provides problem solving opportunities
0
6
42
52
The programs begins with what children already know and gradually introduces the concepts
0
9
35
56
The software does not promote undesirable behaviors (e.g. violence, gender bias)
0
2
13
85
The software encourages active involvement and stimulates the child’s interest
0
0
19
81
The instructions are easy to follow
0
0
19
81
The program is easy to navigate and allows child to use the program independently
0
0
15
85
The software allows children to make changes in the environment without receiving threatening feedback
0
11
40
49
Teacher Use of Criteria for Selecting and Integrating Educational Software in the Classroom Teachers were asked to list the criteria they use when selecting software for their classroom. Teacher responses are displayed in Table 2. It is interesting to note that more than 71 per cent of the teachers who responded indicat-
Ntuli and Kyei-Blankson
186
ed that they mostly considered software based on the ease of use, one of the research-based criteria recommended on the Haugland Developmental Software Scale (1999) and the Haugland/Shade Software Scale (2002). Again, a little over 50 per cent of the teachers considered age appropriateness as a criterion while about 40% said the extent of user-friendliness is what they look out for. Oddly, only 24 % of the teachers mentioned that they consider curriculum goals or the content when choosing software. Surprisingly, only about 20 per cent of the teachers reported that they considered software that was engaging and 20 per cent chose software based on cost and accessibility, a criterion which was not considered on the Haugland Developmental and the Haugland/Shade Software Scales. Table 2 Early Childhood Teachers Criteria for Evaluating, Selecting, and Using Software in the Classroom Category Ease of use Age Appropriateness of the program User friendly Meeting curriculum goals Engaging and entertaining students Cost and accessibility
Percent of Teachers Who Consider this Category 71 53 44 24 20 20
The data revealed that although when supplied with a list of researchbased criteria teacher rated most of the criteria as either important or very important, when as to indicate their own criteria, most teachers’ lists of what is considered as very important differed from what is was actually recommended for evaluation, selection and use in the classroom. In other words, when it came to choosing, the teachers did not follow research-based information. This questions the extent to which most teachers put theory into practice. Haughland (2005) argued that the first thing that teachers need to consider when selecting software or technology to use in the classroom is how the software meshes with the goals or standards identified by the school, district, or the state. The questions that need to be asked are “what curricular area(s) need to be addressed and which standards/goals within these curricular area(s) are important to achieve through computer experiences?” Few teachers in this study raised the issue of the importance of the curriculum. Wardle (2008) concurs with Haughland (2005) that teachers should consider the goals of the curriculum first and find ways computers can be integrated into the curriculum to support learning goals or standards.
Teacher Criteria for Evaluating and Selecting Developmentally Appropriate
187
The findings of this study show that curricula needs were not mostly considered as very important by most of the teachers as they chose software for the classroom. Secondly, Haugland (2005) noted that teachers needed to consider the content of the software, especially the amount of violence demonstrated in the program. Again, although the issue of content was rated highly when faced with the research-based criteria, when it came to their own selection criteria, none of the teachers had mentioned violence as an important criterion they used. Teachers need to understand that violence in software should be among the issues that need to be considered when selecting software since early experiences with violence of all sorts affect social and emotional development (Haugland, 2005; Kuykendall, 1995; Levin, 1995). Age appropriateness is another criterion mentioned by Haugland (2005). The findings of this study show that slightly more than half of the teachers did consider and use this criterion in software selection for diverse learners. It is important to note that the interview data collected from the 10 teacher participants resonates with the results from the survey when it comes to describing the criteria teachers use when selecting and using software programs or technology in the classroom. One common theme that came up frequently was the ease of use. Eight out of 10 teachers interviewed indicated that they look mainly for programs that are easy to use for both the teacher and the students. For instance, one teacher said: I look for programs that I can use and our 5 year olds can use too. They should be able to navigate back and forth without much of my help. Another said: If it is child friendly…if children can use it independently, I consider using it. Another theme was age appropriateness. Two out of ten teachers indicated that they consider a program if it is educational and age appropriate. For instance, one said: I would look for the education. What are they going to learn?... Is it age appropriate? Is it something that I would feel safe having my own children look at? Only one teacher brought up the issue of curriculum and how the software program might help meet the goals of the curriculum as well as whether it was age appropriate. She said:
188
Ntuli and Kyei-Blankson The program has to meet the criteria of the state…if it [does] not help meet the curriculum goals or the state [goals] …I do not think I will use it…I also look at where my children are at…it has to be appropriate for them.
Challenges in Selecting Developmentally Appropriate Software When it came to barriers to selection, teachers were asked to list the top three challenges they encounter in selecting software for use in their classrooms. Teacher responses are outlined in Table 3. The data suggests that the most challenging aspect for teachers involves finding time to learn the software. The survey responses also showed that about 51 per cent of the teachers noted the fact that lack of time affected their ability to review and learn the software before using it in their classrooms. This challenge may have influenced teacher criteria for selection. For instance, not many teachers rated or considered the open-endedness of software. This is not surprising since experience shows that such software require extensive teacher practice, and student exploration and monitoring. Lack of time is not something new, many studies of K-12 teachers and teacher candidates (Hunks, 2002; Lockard and Abrams, 2001; Coughlin, 2008) indicate that time is among the greatest challenges causing a significant barrier to the integration of technology in the classroom. Teachers have been advised to refrain from using any software or hardware that they have not reviewed since such behavior may present a risk to students who undertake activities with the technologies (Haughland, 2005). The technology may end up being developmentally inappropriate for the student. For instance, educational software on the market can be categorized by different grade levels, however, that does not imply that the software is developmentally appropriate for all children in that particular grade level because children develop at different rates or pace. McAfee, Leong, and Bodrova (2006) note that children develop differently, and not in a linear fashion. For instance, “an individual child’s development may be uneven, with his social, physical, language, and intellectual development seemingly on different timelines” (p.15). This explains the fact that children can be in kindergarten but their language development will still be at the pre-kindergarten level. Therefore, software or technology should be reviewed often to determine whether they will meet the needs of different children based on their level of language, social, emotional, and physical development. The second most challenging aspect mentioned was the lack of funds to purchase the software or technology needed for classroom use. Lack of funding was also an issues raised by early childhood educators who participated in a 2008 study by Wood, Specht, Willoubhby, and Mueller. Other
Teacher Criteria for Evaluating and Selecting Developmentally Appropriate
189
challenges included not understanding the connection between the technology and the curriculum, lack of technical support for the purchased programs, limited age appropriate software, and an inability to access and try available material. Looking at the challenges faced by teachers, a few of them can be addressed in teacher education programs or through district professional development programs. For example, districts can provide professional development workshops or enough technical support; teacher education programs can also help with educating teachers on how to make connections between software or technology use and the curriculum. Table 3 Top Rated Teacher Challenges in Evaluating and Selecting Software for the Classroom Challenge
Percent of Teachers
Lack of time to learn about the software Money to purchase the software Understanding the connection between the software and the curriculum Lack of technical support for the purchased programs Not enough computer resources Lack of appropriate software In ability to access material and have trial usage
51 46 28 23 20 15 10
Conclusion and Recommendations From this study it can be concluded that teacher ratings of appropriate software as recommended by research differ from what they actually consider when they select software for their classes. It appears that most teachers rate one criterion as high yet considers another when selecting children’s software or technology. The implication here is that the majority of teachers may not be applying their knowledge of what is recommended as developmentally appropriate when selecting software or when it comes to technology integration in the classrooms. In short, their own criteria of selection differ from research-based processes. This may be an indication that teachers need directions on how to select technology that is developmentally appropriate and effective for learning. Professional development, teacher support procedures, and teacher education programs should address the need for teachers to put theory into practice when it comes to use of developmentally appropriate criteria and technology integration in the classroom. Teacher training programs should consider educating teachers on the importance of connecting software use to
190
Ntuli and Kyei-Blankson
theory requirements. Aldrich stated that technology use should be connected with theories such as Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, Piaget’s cognitivedevelopmental theory, and Gardner’s theory on multiple intelligences. None of these theories were mentioned by the teachers in this study. Knowledge of how software connects to the theories of learning may help minimize the barrier of not understanding the connection between the curriculum and the technology or software program. Professional development and teacher education programs should also help teachers to articulate their teaching philosophies and to determine the relationship between the teaching philosophy and software evaluation. Teachers in this study did not indicate the need for software they considered for use or are using to be congruent with their teaching philosophies. Also, school districts need to allocate a regular time (daily or weekly) for lesson planning that includes teaching with technology. Teachers need time to review the software and become used to it before introducing it in the classroom. The availability of time may help alleviate the most challenging aspect to technology integration as reported by the teachers and in past literature. Finally, if technology is to be used as an instructional tool, then school districts need to allocate or increase funding for such resources to make their acquisition less of a challenge for teachers. Such funds may ensure that the pedagogy and curriculum appropriately drive the instructional use of technology. References Aldrich, J. (2002). Early childhood teacher candidates evaluate computer software for young children. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual. 2002(1), 295-300. Bhargava, A., & Escobedo, T. (1997). What the children said: An analysis of the children’s language during computer lessons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL, 3/1997. Bitter, G., & Pierson, M. (2002). Using technology in the classroom (5th ed). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Buckleitner, W. (2006). The relationship between software design and children’s engagement. Early Education and Development, 17(3), 489-505. Buckleitner, W. (1999). The state of children’s software evaluation-Yesterday, today and in the 21st century. Information Technology in Early Childhood Education, 211-220. Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant, T. (1994). Learning and teaching with technology. In J. L. Wright & D. D. Shade (Eds.), Young children: Active learners in a technological age (pp. 53-61). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Carmines, E. G. & Zeller, R.A. (1991). Reliability and validity assessment. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Coughlin, R. F. (2008). A study of K-8 preservice teachers’ use of digital technologies when student teaching. (Doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University, 2008). ISU ProQuest Digital Dissertations,
Teacher Criteria for Evaluating and Selecting Developmentally Appropriate
191
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc. Fischer, M.A., & Gillespie, C. W. (2003). One Head Start classroom’s experience: Computers and young children’s development. Young Children, (58), 85-91. Gall, M., Borg, W., & Gall, J. (1996). Educational research: An introduction. White Plains: Longman. Gay, L. (1996). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall. Gimbert, B., & Cristol, D. (2004). Teaching curriculum with technology: Enhancing children’s technology competence during early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31, 207-216. Gonzalez-Mena, J., & Eyer, D.W. (2007). Infant, toddlers, and caregivers: A curriculum of respectful, responsive care and education (7th ed). New York: MacGraw-Hill. Hunks, R. F. (2002). Environmental and Personal Factors Effecting K-12 Teacher Utilization of Technology. National Educational Computing Conference Proceedings, pp.1-1 Haugland, S. (1992). Effects of computer software on preschool children’s developmental gains. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 3(1), 15–30. Haugland, S. (1999a). What role should technology play in young children’s learning? Young Children, 54(6), 26–31. Haugland, S. (1999b). The newest software that meets the developmental needs of young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 26(4), 245–254. Haugland, S. (2005). Selecting or upgrading software and web sites in the classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(5), 329–340. Haugland, S., & Ruiz, E. (2002). Empowering children with technology: Outstanding developmental software for 2002. Early Childhood Education Journal, 30(2), 125–132. Haugland, S., & Wright, J. (1997). Young children and technology: A world of discovery. NewYork: Allyn and Bacon. Haugland, S. W., & Shade, D. D. (1994). Software evaluation for young children. In J. A. Wright & D. D. Shade (Eds.). Young children: Active learners in a technological age. Washington, DC: NAEYC Press. Judson, E.(2006). How teachers integrate technology and their beliefs about learning: Is there a connection. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education,14 (3), 581-597. Kostelnik, M.J., Whiren, A. P., Sodernam, A.K., & Gregory, K. (2009). Guiding children’s social development: Theory to practice (6th ed). New York: Delmar. Kostelnik, M.J., Sodernam, A.K., & Whiren, A. P. (2007). Best practices in early childhood education. New Jersey: Upper Saddle River. Kuykendall, J. (1995). Is gun OK here? Young Children, 50(5), 50-59. Levin, D. (1995). Understanding and responding to the violence in children’s lives. Child Care Information Exchange, 102, 34-38. Liu, M. (1996). An exploratory study of how pre-kindergarten children use the interactive multimedia technology: Implications for multimedia software design. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7(2), 71–92. McAfee, O., Leong, D.J., & Bodrova, E. (2006). Basics of assessment: A primer for early childhood educators. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
192
Ntuli and Kyei-Blankson
Mischra, P., & Koehler, M.J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A Framework for integrating technology in teacher’s knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. NAEYC. (1996). NAEYC position statement: Technology and young children. Young Children, 51(6), 11–16. NAEYC Technology & Young Children Interest Forum. (2010). Technology tools for educators. Retrieved July, 2010, from http://www.techandyoungchildren.org/educators. html National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Retrieved September, 2009, from https://oldweb.naeyc.org/about/positions/ pdf/PSDAP.pdf National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). Computers and Internet use by students in 2003: Statistical analysis report (NCES 2006-065). DeBell, M, & Chapman, C: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Nikolopoulou, K. (2007). Early childhood educational software: Specific features and issues of localization. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35(2), 173-179. Northwest Educational Technology Consortium. (2005). Early connections: Technology in early childhood education. Retrieved February, 2009, from http://www.netc.org/ earlyconnections/index2.html Northwest Educational Technology Consortium. (2002). Five effective ways for young children to use technology. Retrieved May, 2009, from http://www.netc.org Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: children, computers and powerful ideas. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press. Parette, H. P., Hourcade, J.J., Boeckmann, N.M., & Blumm,C. (2008). Using Microsoft PowerPoint to support emergent literacy skill development for young children at-risk who have disabilities. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36(3), 233-239. Potter, J., Johanson, J., & Hutinger, P. (2006). Creative software can extend children’s expressiveness. Retrieved February 16, 2009, from http://www.wiu.edu/users/mimacp/wiu/articles/software4.html Roblyer, M. & Edwards, J. (2000). Integrating educational technology into teaching (2nd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. CA: Sage Publication,Inc. Schmidt, D.A., Baran, E., Thompson, A.D., Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., & Shin, T.S. (2009). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK): The development and validation of an assessment instrument for preservice teachers. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(2), 123-149. Scoter, J. V., Ellis, D., & Railsback, J. ( 2001). Technology in early childhood education: Finding the balance. Northwest Regional Education Laboratory. Retrieved June 2009, from http://www.netc.org/earlyconnections/byrequest.pdf Shamburg, C. (2004). Conditions that inhibit the integration of technology for urban early childhood teachers. Information Technology in Childhood Education Annual, 2004(1) 227-244. Wardle, F. (2008). The role of technology in early childhood programs. Retrieved March 10, 2010, from http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view. aspx?ArticleID=302 Wood, J. (2001). Can software support children’s vocabulary development? Language,Learning, and Technology, 5(1), 166-201
Teacher Criteria for Evaluating and Selecting Developmentally Appropriate
193
Wood, E., Specht, J., Willoughby, T., & Mueller, J. (2008). Integrating computer technology in early childhood education environments: Issues raised by early childhood educators. The Alberta Journal of Education Research, 54(2), 210-226. Yelland, N. (1999). Technology as play. Early Childhood Education, 26(4), 217 220. Yelland, N. (2005). Curriculum, pedagogies and practice with ICT n the information age. In N. Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues in early childhood education (pp. 224–242). UK: Open University Press.
